In this experimental study, unacquainted dyads engaged in a get-acquainted task using two modes of communication across two segments of interaction. The dyads either first disclosed in text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) and then disclosed face-to-face (FtF) or the reverse. The participants completed reaction measures after each segment of interaction. After the first segment, dyads who communicated FtF reported more positive outcomes (e.g., liking, closeness) than dyads who engaged in CMC. Furthermore, dyads who began in CMC and then transitioned to FtF increased in their positive reactions, whereas dyads who began in FtF and transitioned to CMC either experienced no change (in liking, closeness, and perceived similarity) or experienced a decrease (in fun/enjoyment and perceived responsiveness). Implications of the results are discussed both for the classic social psychology question of how people become acquainted and for current interest in how mixed-mode interactions generate social bonds that can help meet belonging needs.
AntheunisMarjolijn L.SchoutenAlexander P.WaltherJoseph B.2020. “The Hyperpersonal Effect in Online Dating: Effects of Text-based CMC vs. Videoconferencing before Meeting Face-to-Face.”Media Psychology23(6):820–39.
2.
AntheunisMarjolijn L.ValkenburgPatti M.PeterJochen. 2007. “Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Attraction: An Experimental Test of Two Explanatory Hypotheses.”CyberPsychology & Behavior10(6):831–36.
3.
AronArthurAronElaine N.SmollanDanny. 1992. “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63(4):596–612.
4.
AronArthurMelinatEdwardAronElaine N.ValloneRobert DarrinBatorRenee J.1997. “The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin23(4):363–77.
5.
BaumeisterRoy F.LearyMark R.1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.”Psychological Bulletin117(3):497–529.
6.
BeckwithCary. 2019. “Who Belongs? How Status Influences the Experience ofGemeinschaft.”Social Psychology Quarterly82(1):31–50.
7.
BenteGaryRüggenbergSabineKrämerNicole C.EschenburgFelix. 2008. “Avatar-Mediated Networking: Increasing Social Presence and Interpersonal Trust in Net-Based Collaborations.”Human Communication Research34(2):287–318.
8.
BouchillonBrandon C.2019. “Supplementing Access to Social Capital Over Time: Computer-Mediated Communication Competence for Social-Resource Development.”Social Science Computer Review. doi:10.1177/0894439319895500.
9.
BuckleyKatherine E.WinkelRachel E.LearyMark R.2004. “Reactions to Acceptance and Rejection: Effects of Level and Sequence of Relational Evaluation.”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology40(1):14–28.
10.
ByrneDonn. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
11.
ChenWenhong. 2013. “Internet Use, Online Communication, and Ties in Americans’ Networks.”Social Science Computer Review31(4):404–23.
12.
CroesEmmelyn A. J.AntheunisMarjolijn L.SchoutenAlexander P.KrahmerEmiel J.2019. “Social Attraction in Video-Mediated Communication: The Role of Nonverbal Affiliative Behavior.”Journal of Social and Personal Relationships36(4):1210–32.
13.
CulnanMary J.MarkusM. Lynne. 1987. “Information Technologies.” Pp. 420–43 in Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, and L. W. Porter. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
14.
CurtisRebecca C.MillerKim. 1986. “Believing Another Likes or Dislikes You: Behaviors Making the Beliefs Come True.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(2):284–90.
15.
DavisJenny L.2020. How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
EvansSandra K.PearceKaty E.VitakJessicaTreemJeffrey W.2017. “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(1):284–90.
17.
FinkelEli J.EastwickPaul W.KarneyBenjamin R.ReisHarry T.SprecherSusan. 2012. “Online Dating: A Critical Analysis from the Perspective of Psychological Science.”Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(1):3–66.
18.
FinkelEli J.EastwickPaul W.MatthewsJacob. 2007. “Speed-Dating as an Invaluable Tool for Studying Romantic Attraction: A Methodological Primer.”Personal Relationships14:149–66.
19.
FoxJesseMcEwanBree. 2017. “Distinguishing Technologies for Social Interaction: The Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale.”Communication Monographs84(3):298–318.
20.
HirschJennifer L.ClarkMargaret S.2019. “Multiple Paths to Belonging That We Should Study Together.”Perspectives on Psychological Science14(2):238–55.
21.
JiangL. CrystalBazarovaNatalya N.HancockJeffrey T.2013. “From Perception to Behavior: Disclosure Reciprocity and the Intensification of Intimacy in Computer-Mediated Communication.”Communication Research40(1):125–43.
KennyDavid A.KashyDeborah A.CookWilliam L.2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
LedbetterAndrew M.2010. “Content-and Medium-Specific Decomposition of Friendship Relational Maintenance: Integrating Equity and Media Multiplexity Approaches.”Journal of Social and Personal Relationships27(7):938–55.
25.
LedbetterAndrew M.MazerJoseph P.DeGrootJocelyn M.MeyerKevin R.MaoYupingSwaffordBrian. 2011. “Attitudes toward Online Social Connection and Self-Disclosure as Predictors of Facebook Communication and Relational Closeness.”Communication Research38(1):27–53.
26.
LeFebvreLeah E.2018. “Swiping Me off My Feet: Explicating Relationship Initiation on Tinder.”Journal of Social and Personal Relationships35(9):1205–29.
27.
LundyBrenda L.DrouinMichelle. 2016. “From Social Anxiety to Interpersonal Connectedness: Relationship Building within Face-to-Face, Phone and Instant Messaging Mediums.”Computers in Human Behavior54:271–77.
28.
MallenMichael J.DaySusan X.GreenMelinda A.2003. “Online Versus Face-to-Face Conversation: An Examination of Relational and Discourse Variables.”Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 40(1–2):155–63.
29.
McEwanBreeZanollaDavid. 2013. “When Online Meets Offline: A Field Investigation of Modality Switching.”Computers in Human Behavior29(4):1565–71.
30.
McFarlandDaniel A.JurafskyDanRawlingsCraig. 2013. “Making the Connection: Social Bonding in Courtship Situations.”American Journal of Sociology118:1596–649.
31.
McKennaKatelyn Y. A.GreenAmie S.GleasonMarci E. J.2002. “Relationship Formation on the Internet: What's the Big Attraction?”Journal of Social Issues58(1):9–31.
32.
MerkleErich R.RichardsonRhonda A.2000. “Digital Dating and Virtual Relating: Conceptualizing Computer Mediated Romantic Relationships.”Family Relations49(2):187–92.
33.
MolmLinda D.CookKaren S.1995. “Social Exchange and Exchange Networks.” Pp. 209–35 in Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by CookK. S.FineG. A.HouseJ. S.Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
34.
OkdieBradley M.GuadagnoRosanna E.BernieriFrank J.GeersAndrew L.Mclarney-VesotskiAmber R.2011. “Getting to Know You: Face-to-Face Versus Online Interactions.”Computers in Human Behavior27(1):153–59.
35.
ParksMalcolm R.2017. “Embracing the Challenges and Opportunities of Mixed-Media Relationships.”Human Communication Research43(4):505–17.
36.
RamirezArtemioJr.SumnerErin M.2015. “Modality Switching.” In The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, edited by BergerC. R.RoloffM. E. (Eds.). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic212.
37.
RamirezArtemioJr.SumnerErin M.FleurietChristinaColeMegan. 2015. “When Online Dating Partners Meet Offline: The Effect of Modality Switching on Relational Communication between Online Daters.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(1):99–114.
38.
RamirezArtemioJr.WangZuoming. 2008. “When Online Meets Offline: An Expectancy Violations Theory Perspective on Modality Switching.”Journal of Communication58(1):20–39.
39.
RamirezArtenioJr.ZhangShuangyue. 2007. “When Online Meets Offline: The Effect of Modality Switching on Relational Communication.”Communication Monographs74(3):287–310.
40.
ReisHarry T.ManiaciMichael R.CaprarielloPeter A.EastwickPaul W.FinkelEli J.2011. “Familiarity Does Indeed Promote Attraction in Live Interaction.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101(3):557–70.
41.
SandstromGillian M.DunnElizabeth W.2014. “Social Interactions and Well-Being: The Surprising Power of Weak Ties.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin40(7):910–22.
42.
SedikidesConstantine W.CampbellKeithReederGlenn D.ElliotAndrew J.1999. “The Relationship Closeness Induction Task.”Representative Research in Social Psychology23:1–4.
43.
SharabiLiesel L.CaughlinJohn P.2017. “What Predicts First Date Success? A Longitudinal Study of Modality Switching in Online Dating.”Personal Relationships24(2):370–91.
44.
ShortJohnWilliamsEderynChristieBruce. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
45.
SolanoCecilia H.DunnamMina. 1985. “Two's Company: Self-Disclosure and Reciprocity in Triads versus Dyads.”Social Psychology Quarterly48(2):183–87.
46.
SolomonDenise H.RoloffMichael E.2018. “Relationship Initiation and Growth.” Pp. 79–89 in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, edited by VangelistiA.PerlmanD.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
SprecherSusan. 2014. “Initial Interactions Online-Text, Online-Audio, Online-Video, or Face-to-Face: Effects of Modality on Liking, Closeness, and Other Interpersonal Outcomes.”Computers in Human Behavior31:190–97.
48.
SprecherSusanFelmleeDianeMettsSandraCupachWilliam. 2015. “Relationship Initiation and Development.” Pp. 211–45 in Volume 2: Interpersonal Relationships and Group Processes, edited by J. Simpson and J. Dovidio. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
49.
SprecherSusanHamptonAdam J.2017. “Liking and Other Reactions after a Get-Acquainted Interaction: A Comparison of Continuous Face-to-Face Interaction versus Interaction That Progresses from Text Messages to Face-to-Face.”Communication Quarterly65(3):333–53.
50.
SprecherSusanTregerStanislav. 2015. “The Benefits of Turn-Taking Reciprocal Self-Disclosure in Get-Acquainted Interactions.”Personal Relationships22:460–75.
51.
StetsJan E.BurkePeter J.SavageScott V.2018. “Exchange, Identity Verification, and Social Bonds.”Social Psychology Quarterly81(3):207–27.
52.
TidwellLisa CollinsWaltherJoseph B.2002. “Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time.”Human Communication Research28(3):317–48.
53.
TulinMarinaLanceeBramVolkerBeate. 2018. “Personality and Social Capital.”Social Psychology Quarterly81(4):295–318.
54.
VazireSimineGoslingSamuel D.2004. “e-Perceptions: Personality Impressions Based on Personal Websites.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87(1):123–32.
55.
WagnerThomas R.2018. “When Off-Line Seeks Information Online: The Effect of Modality Switching and Time on Attributional Confidence and Social Attraction.”Communication Research Reports35(4):346–55.
56.
WaltherJoseph B.1992. “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective.”Communication Research19(1):52–90.
57.
WaltherJoseph B.1996. “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction.”Communication Research23(1):1–43.
58.
WaltherJoseph B.2011. “Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations.” Pp. 443–79 in The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, edited by KnappM. L.DalyJ. A.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
59.
WaltherJoseph B.Van Der HeideBrandonRamirezArtemioBurgoonJudee K.PeñaJorge. 2015. “Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Computer-Mediated Communication.” Pp. 3–22 in The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, edited by SundarS. S.Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
60.
VanVoorhisC. R. WilsonMorganBetsy L.2007. “Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for Determining Sample Sizes.”Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology3(2):43–50.
61.
YangChia-chenBrownB. BradfordBraunMichael T.2014. “From Facebook to Cell Calls: Layers of Electronic Intimacy in College Students’ Interpersonal Relationships.”New Media & Society16(1):5–23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
